Ditto! CK is an amazing intellect and I savor his columns both on-line in in my local tabloid, The Boston Herald. I had a friend who was wheelchair bound and, though he was charmingly anti-intellectual, I grew to have great admiration for his personal courage and optimism. In Charles Krauthammer you have the best of both worlds. He has overcome daunting physical obstacles to share with the world his fine writing and elegant reasoning.

Are you suggesting that counting could be part of an unbiased IQ test?

No, none of the IQ tests I have ever encountered included counting. However, Charlie's ability to count to ten can be measured by IQ testing. There are many instances in which someone with a low IQ has the ability to derive complex correct mathematical answers without training in mathematics but cannot do the simple tasks for everyday existence. I will agree that all tests are biased if the parameters are unlimited. However what purpose does it serve other than to make all tests invalid for a specific agenda.

Consider this possible Darwinian irony, that whatever genetic component there is for homosexuality, they are less fit in a society that allows them to freely identify and act upon their preferences. In a more "repressive" society they are forced to hide their orientation and participate in reproductive activity in biologically viable ways. I'm sure Gregory Bateson would have fun with that idea.

However, Charlie's ability to count to ten can be measured by IQ testing.

I sure that specific skills vary genetically, but I do not accept the concept of g. Any large population will have those factors that contribute to survival in that culture. We value counting and reading. It is circular to say that the factors we value define general intelligence.

All populations have exceptional individuals, by any standards. The frequency of these exceptional traits can shift rapidly if they become valuable to the population.

211
posted on 12/05/2005 11:06:43 AM PST
by js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)

The scary thing is that after Great Britain, America has the one of the highest, if not the highest, average national IQs. 98.

You'd soon shake yourself of that notion if you walked along some of the streets near my home. Either that or everyone else out there has the IQ of a fencepost. I'm not sure which prospect is more alarming. (anecdotal observations applying to population of many millions disclaimer, before Dr Stoch gets on to me)

megatherium: We live in a universe that supports life, where the laws of physics and chemistry are not random and appear to have lead to the origin of life. There is where I personally see the Creator, a Creator who has chosen the most elegant way possible to create life.

CarolinaGuitarman: That is a very nice position, but it is not open to scientific investigation.

Indeed, that's just my point. You do not have to adhere to "creationism" or ID to believe in a God who created the universe and life, and you're right, this isn't open to scientific investigation. I might recommend the book Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller; he is a prominent biologist who is a Roman Catholic, who explains why evolution is compatible with Christian theology but why ID is bad theology and bad science.

According to your perception, because you value that particular combination. But it's not statistically any less likely than any other combination.

No, but the probability of getting a combination that I value is extremely low, which is why I would find it astonishing to get one.

Take a better analogy: A lottery machine containing 100 billion blue balls and just one red ball. The lottery machine randomly selects a ball. If the selected ball is red I would find that astonishing because the odds of that happening were so low (this is entirely valid astonisment, showing that retrospective astonishment is not always a fallacy)

An argument parallel to your above argument would be that my astonishment at getting a red ball is only due to my perception because I value red balls, and pointing out that the red ball had just as much chance of being selected as any particular blue ball. But it isn't the particular ball that astonishes me, it is the particular color of that ball.

IQ And The Wealth Of Nations... a book I want to read when I get the chance. I've read some of Rushton's controversal stuff, but not yet IQ and wealth. I'm a little afraid to post this, very controversal... flame bait!

In fairness RKS only ventured a hypothetical, and it was at least an interesting one. There would be a bizarre irony in the freedom to come out being bad for the homosexuality genes. Though I agree with you that I suspect it won't work like that. In evidence I cite that homosexuality hasn't died out in past human societies where it was openly practiced AFAIK.

I don't know a lot of openly gay people, but one of my former co-workers had been married and had children. It's possible that in a world without closets, fewer gay men would get married and have children. I wouldn't bet either way on the outcome.

224
posted on 12/05/2005 11:39:36 AM PST
by js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)

I don't know enough about it to speak with any authority, but I suspect that most exclusive homosexual tendencies are rooted in things like the hormonal environment in the mother's womb, rather than an identifiable gene. A "homosexual gene" that yielded lifelong, exclusive homosexual activity would be, by definition, lethal in its phylogenetic results.

... the probability of getting a combination that I value is extremely low, which is why I would find it astonishing to get one.

The point of my card-shuffle post is not that our particular biosphere isn't unlikely, because it is. It's just that whatever biosphere gets produced will be equally unlikely. Ours is no more unlikely than any other. If you went back to 4 billion years ago and started the whole thing up all over again, you'd probably end up with a totally different mix of species, none of them exactly like what we have now. But this "shuffle of the cards" is ours. We're unique. Which is why -- contrary to the endlessly repeated claims of the creationists -- the evolutionary point of view places a higher value on humanity than one where we could be wiped out and started up again at the whim of a deity.

No, but the probability of getting a combination that I value is extremely low, which is why I would find it astonishing to get one.

That's the kicker, what you value. What we all value, of course, is our present existence, our present form of life. If things had worked out a bit different, there could be another form of life here, valuing its outcome.

If the selected ball is red I would find that astonishing because the odds of that happening were so low (this is entirely valid astonisment, showing that retrospective astonishment is not always a fallacy)

I would be astonished, too. However, now think of that tank having a billion different colors in it and you didn't care which one was picked. Are you now astonished that the red one came up?

Are you changing the subject now? You made an unfounded assertion that a lot of research was based on "untestable assumptions." I pointed out that you were wrong, and now suddenly we're talking about phenomena "occuring naturally."

229
posted on 12/05/2005 12:02:16 PM PST
by Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)

Which is why -- contrary to the endlessly repeated claims of the creationists -- the evolutionary point of view places a higher value on humanity than one where we could be wiped out and started up again at the whim of a deity.

I personally lean toward the rare earth hypothesis. If you look at the history of mass extinctions on this planet it seems unlikely that any planet would undergo the history that led to primates.

There are lots of big brains around, but only one species with syntactical language.

230
posted on 12/05/2005 12:14:42 PM PST
by js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)

One thing y'all may be overlooking is that relatively few homosexuals are exclusively homosexual. I've only known a few gay folks in my lifetime, and generally they were bisexual with a strong, though not exclusive, tendency toward attraction to members of their own sex.

232
posted on 12/05/2005 12:19:57 PM PST
by Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)

On that same note, if there IS a genetic component to homosexuality, the expression of it could be highly variable depending on the social environment that the individual was a part of. Present day expression, with the desire of gays to have pair bonding, is relatively new historically speaking. Trying to figure out in what way this genetic component (if it exists) was expressed in early Man is probably not possible.

235
posted on 12/05/2005 12:27:11 PM PST
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

One thing y'all may be overlooking is that relatively few homosexuals are exclusively homosexual. I've only known a few gay folks in my lifetime, and generally they were bisexual with a strong, though not exclusive, tendency toward attraction to members of their own sex.

Altogether now, "In the Navy..."

That was the thrust (arf arf) of one of my original replies to snowbelt, though not in so many words.

Present day expression, with the desire of gays to have pair bonding, is relatively new historically speaking.

IIRC, the Persians of Alexander's time maintained a regiment composed solely of homosexual men and their lovers, the idea being that no man would want to appear cowardly in the presence of his significant other.

240
posted on 12/05/2005 12:33:27 PM PST
by Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)

There are examples of species with a high proportion of nonreproducing individuals.

Canis Lupus, just as a mammalian example. There is an extreme example in the social insects. (Order Hymenoptera?) I didn't mean it to be serious proposition, just a conceit. I suspect the premise is flawed, that a gene or group of genes is responsible for inflexible, lifelong preference for one's same sex is unlikely. Probably it is just a "wild type" being acted on by unusual environmental factors. Even if were true, there is no reason to suppose that it would have an appreciable effect on gene frequency, necessarily. Then there is the question of why some societies, like The Greeks and Romans, didn't make the same rigid distinctions we do. It was useful in their societies to redirect the sexual drives of males, in certain circumstances, to boys, and then back to females for procreation. Some say that they had no heterosexuals and homosexuals, but I would argue that that pattern in society masked those who were different in the sense that they primarily responded to visual stimuli from same sex secondary sexual characteristics. My objection to public policy that allows same sex marriage is that it furthers the view that sex is primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. The declining birth rates of advanced Western societies should be of concern to us. (The Death of The West) Earlier Western societies did a better job of integrating homosexuality into their cultures than we do, to wit, the Castrati. Even though it was strictly banned by the Church, it was accepted as a part of high culture with a wink and a nod by the elite.

These articles always fail to address the elephant in the room: Evolution has never adequately defended itself against the empirical evidence of punctuated equilibrium. If evolution as an explanation of the origins of life can't hold water, then how can one put the same burden of proof on any other theory.

Hey! As an 18 year veteran of the (U.S.) Navy and Navy Reserve I was ever only aware of one homosexual incident at any of my duty stations. Of course it sucked that the two involved were in my department and I shared a 40-man berthing space with them...

244
posted on 12/05/2005 12:36:31 PM PST
by Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)

I don't see what all the commotion is about. It really is quite simple. I do not understand how something works, cannot explain it with my present accumulation of experience and knowledge, therefore it is unexplainable and irriduceable. It is in fact, therefore, the will of the creator, ie, intelligent (more than me) design. /sarc.

I don't think that was the norm though. I am certainly not an authority on the subject. In Christian Europe I don't think though that there was the same type of exclusivity that we see (sorta) today. Of course, you had to put on an act for most of that time. At any rate, I don't think it is possible, for the time being, to explore the roots of such a complex behavior.

249
posted on 12/05/2005 12:39:39 PM PST
by CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.